14 thoughts on “Like Democracy?”

Technically, there can be no court battle since Prop 8 was a Constitutional Amendment and therefore cannot be deemed unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court, since it is part of the Constitution now.

Although, I am sure you are right that they will find some way to circumvent that.

Hi Tim, I hope everything is going well up in the frozen north. I had the opportunity to write a brief article for a local newspaper in my part of Los Angeles in support of Prop 8. Most interesting of all though was the obvious difference in the sort of support the different sides of the debate had. The pro-side seemed very much like a grass-roots movement: the yard signs in favor of the proposition out-numbered the other side’s signs by (no joke) 20 to 1. On the other side, the sodomitic side, they flooded the networks with celebrity-heavy TV ads. Again, the disparity was obvious: likely 10 to 1.

Homosexuality is unhealthy individually, socially, spiritually, and emotionally. A monogamous heterosexual ( male reproductive organ to female reproductive organ ) couple ( from virginhood ) will not have the physical problems that a monogamous homosexual couple ( from virginhood ) will have. When one’s lifestyle is designed to prevent illness there is rarely a need for “health Care ” which really turns out to be “sick care” ( used for modern doctors and drug companies to make money.

First of all, Andy, it’s unfortunate that you feel Keith Olbermann is a reliable source for anything, let alone big social questions.

But since other people are asking the same question, it’s worth discussing. However, the question itself assumes a view that I do not share, i.e., that things are only good or bad insofar as they affect me as an isolated individual. I happen to think that laws that are made or not made have an affect on their societies, cities, states, and the country as a whole. Even more, every single person in this country has a stake in what constitutes marriage, whether they themselves are married or not.

The family is the fundamental piece in whether the whole society is healthy. So if children cannot depend on having two parents who are both biologically related to him or her. Since two people of the same sex, by definition, cannot have a child together, I contend that that is not the best situation in which to raise a child. And if that’s not the best situation to raise a child–even, perhaps, a harmful one (that would take a different thread)–and if specific children of specific parents make up the society around me, then it seems to me that it absolutely does concern me what happens to marriage and the family.

All one has to do is to take a look at the Scandinavian countries to see that marriage is basically a vestige of a bygone era, and children no longer have the stability, among other things, that give them the best chance to be well-adjusted adults, members of society, and parents of their own children.

That’s part of my answer, at least. Even if the question does come from Keith Olbermann.

I’m certain that you also find O’Reilly a good source of unbiased information. With that said, I gave no indication of what I felt about Olbermann – simply asked if you had seen his piece regarding Proposition 8.

But, marriage doesn’t equal having a family. Marriage doesn’t include the caveat that the couple had to have children.

In addition, if marriage is the gauge of the health of a society, then the society in which we find ourselves is pretty unhealthy already, so allowing people who want to get married to do so can’t possibly do worse than those it is “meant fr” have done with it.

“I’m certain that you also find O’Reilly a good source of unbiased information.” It always has to go that way, doesn’t it? Actually, O’Reilly is not at all unbiased; and I don’t even get Fox News. (However, I have watched Olbermann before. Have you watched O’Reilly?)

Hey, I’m not arguing that marriage has been represented well by heterosexuals. It hasn’t. Divorce, adultery, promiscuity, etc. are all evils, as far as I’m concerned. But I question whether homosexuals who want to get “married” have the good of the family and society at heart.

“But, marriage doesn’t equal having a family. Marriage doesn’t include the caveat that the couple had to have children.”

True, but it has always, previously, included the inherent ability to actually make a child together. Thus, I rule out even the possibility of homosexual “marriage” by definition.

You had it go that way first, when you gave me a hard time about Olbermann being a “reliable source.” It’s unfair to call me out on something that you did first. And, I have watched O’Reilly, yes, since you asked.

You make two points – that homosexual couples who want to marry might not have the good of the family and society at heart, and that marriage is, at least in part, defined by the OPTION to physically produce offspring.

First, a marriage doesn’t have to include the good of family and society for heterosexual couples, so why should homosexual couples have to prove that? It’s pretty outrageous for homosexual couples to have to prove their love, intentions, etc. to society when heterosexual couples don’t have to.

Second, there are plenty of people who marry who are unable to have children because of age or physical problems or whatever reason. Marriage itself goes beyond that which we can quantify. Placing rote definitions like “the ability to have children together” on marriage cheapens what I believe it is actually about.

Ok, let’s forget the Olbermann/O’Reilly thing. I’m not a fan of O’Reilly and Olbermann’s an idiot.

“First, a marriage doesn’t have to include the good of family and society for heterosexual couples, so why should homosexual couples have to prove that? It’s pretty outrageous for homosexual couples to have to prove their love, intentions, etc. to society when heterosexual couples don’t have to.”

This is not about proving anything. I argue that by the very fact of what heterosexual marriage is, i.e., marriage, that it is good for society. Of course it’s not good for society if the marriage breaks up, if the husband and wife engage in extra-marital intercourse, if they beat their children, etc. But in and of itself, marriage is a stabilizing institution for a society (e.g., higher economic level, stability for children, they do better in school). It simply is for the good of the society by virtue of what it is.

“Second, there are plenty of people who marry who are unable to have children because of age or physical problems or whatever reason. Marriage itself goes beyond that which we can quantify. Placing rote definitions like “the ability to have children together” on marriage cheapens what I believe it is actually about.”

Perhaps I was not clear enough. I don’t mean that marriage is defined by the option of having children, nor am I talking about whether a married couple is actually able at any given time to have a child. I mean that, by definition, a man with sperm and a woman with an egg are the only possible coupling that can produce a child. No matter how we spin it, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, are unable–absolutely–to produce offspring.

You are right that marriage goes beyond that inherent possibility of children, but it has always included that possibility.